Today, calls for a wealth tax come from the political Left. Historically, this has not always been so: they used to have supporters on the Right, and elsewhere on the political spectrum
Very interesting perspective and assumptions. Kristian, most people in politics still aspire to wealth or are wealthy. Say for a few your left wing opposites. So getting turkeys to vote for Christmas is a more simple answer. As for Switzerland then they are all wealthy but have to think of their services as a need also like socialists. So a wealth tax is a status symbol to the world and to themselves that even the rich can run and be willing to be socialists if they need services. And they do! These are Turkeys not voting for Christmas. They own the farm! They want a better Barn! There are not enough workers as they are too heavy in wealth so act socialist to get what they need. They are a chameleon in that way. Rich enough to have no conscience but weak enough to realise they need the help of socialism! … a wealth tax is hard to enact. It’s full of problems around value and as such is not easy. Switzerland runs on confession of wealth. A self certification of wealth. I see that can be abused. But my main problem with wealth is it’s unclear and intangible. And to be honest you can’t really tax stuff! Tax is for money. But you snd must confuse the two Kristian. Money is needed by us all. To buy the goods services and assets we all need including the rich and wealthy. But what they have as stuff, assets etc is legal theirs! It’s the basic rule of democracy. What is yours is yours. Except for money! That’s not theirs or mine or yours! Money is sovereign. It’s a token for the exchange of work. Fair exchange. But it’s neither fair nor exchanged. And there is where we can instruct our government to step in. Not by further taxes but simply by making them SPEND the money on something! To give that exchange! To bring money back into the pot from which we all need it to be there! That’s the point Kristian. Too much of our money is in their hands. By all means use it. They have earned the right. But SPEND it! Don’t keep them sit in it. They can equally as well buy gold or diamonds or oil which will make more money when sold back in the time they usually hold out cash! But it’s our cash we need to fund our needs. That’s the point.
As you say, starting from a blank piece of paper, one should be agnostic about the choice between a tax system based on flows versus stocks. You need to decide which way to go based on the pluses and minuses of each. To do both is egregious theft since my stock (wealth) is simply the accumulation of my lifetime taxed flows; to tax it as a stock above a certain floor is pure double taxation, a punishment for accumulation.
The one exception I would make where I would tolerate such double taxation is in the event of one in a lifetime national emergencies such as the German examples quoted of repairing a war ravaged nation post 1945 or to finance reunification. I would regard this as analogous to supporting an emergency rights issue in a company in my portfolio which remains entirely viable but needs to be shored up after some corporate event has ravaged its balance sheet. I might grumble but would still get my cheque book out. So on the once in a lifetime basis I (and all my well to do friends) would have been prepared to take part in a “national rights issue” in 2021-22 to repair the national balance sheet post Covid, notwithstanding that I consider that much of the damage was an unnecessary self infliction. That would be our once in a lifetime event that would justify a whip round among the wealthy. That is acceptable; an annual surcharge on my stock (which of course fluctuates in value all the time in so far as it can be valued at all and some can’t) is absolutely not acceptable.
The State has to decide which way to go. Tax flows or tax stocks, but once that decision has been made there’s no easy going back without double taxation that would need long transitional periods, other for the one-off emergency scenarios. The U.K. has chosen to tax flows; therefore it should not tax stocks.
Very interesting perspective and assumptions. Kristian, most people in politics still aspire to wealth or are wealthy. Say for a few your left wing opposites. So getting turkeys to vote for Christmas is a more simple answer. As for Switzerland then they are all wealthy but have to think of their services as a need also like socialists. So a wealth tax is a status symbol to the world and to themselves that even the rich can run and be willing to be socialists if they need services. And they do! These are Turkeys not voting for Christmas. They own the farm! They want a better Barn! There are not enough workers as they are too heavy in wealth so act socialist to get what they need. They are a chameleon in that way. Rich enough to have no conscience but weak enough to realise they need the help of socialism! … a wealth tax is hard to enact. It’s full of problems around value and as such is not easy. Switzerland runs on confession of wealth. A self certification of wealth. I see that can be abused. But my main problem with wealth is it’s unclear and intangible. And to be honest you can’t really tax stuff! Tax is for money. But you snd must confuse the two Kristian. Money is needed by us all. To buy the goods services and assets we all need including the rich and wealthy. But what they have as stuff, assets etc is legal theirs! It’s the basic rule of democracy. What is yours is yours. Except for money! That’s not theirs or mine or yours! Money is sovereign. It’s a token for the exchange of work. Fair exchange. But it’s neither fair nor exchanged. And there is where we can instruct our government to step in. Not by further taxes but simply by making them SPEND the money on something! To give that exchange! To bring money back into the pot from which we all need it to be there! That’s the point Kristian. Too much of our money is in their hands. By all means use it. They have earned the right. But SPEND it! Don’t keep them sit in it. They can equally as well buy gold or diamonds or oil which will make more money when sold back in the time they usually hold out cash! But it’s our cash we need to fund our needs. That’s the point.
As you say, starting from a blank piece of paper, one should be agnostic about the choice between a tax system based on flows versus stocks. You need to decide which way to go based on the pluses and minuses of each. To do both is egregious theft since my stock (wealth) is simply the accumulation of my lifetime taxed flows; to tax it as a stock above a certain floor is pure double taxation, a punishment for accumulation.
The one exception I would make where I would tolerate such double taxation is in the event of one in a lifetime national emergencies such as the German examples quoted of repairing a war ravaged nation post 1945 or to finance reunification. I would regard this as analogous to supporting an emergency rights issue in a company in my portfolio which remains entirely viable but needs to be shored up after some corporate event has ravaged its balance sheet. I might grumble but would still get my cheque book out. So on the once in a lifetime basis I (and all my well to do friends) would have been prepared to take part in a “national rights issue” in 2021-22 to repair the national balance sheet post Covid, notwithstanding that I consider that much of the damage was an unnecessary self infliction. That would be our once in a lifetime event that would justify a whip round among the wealthy. That is acceptable; an annual surcharge on my stock (which of course fluctuates in value all the time in so far as it can be valued at all and some can’t) is absolutely not acceptable.
The State has to decide which way to go. Tax flows or tax stocks, but once that decision has been made there’s no easy going back without double taxation that would need long transitional periods, other for the one-off emergency scenarios. The U.K. has chosen to tax flows; therefore it should not tax stocks.